[MD] Metaphysics

[MarshaV]

On Jan 15, 2010, at 2:51 AM, markhsmit wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> Thanks for your response.  The only place I would be at odds
> with you, by inference, is the notion that gods are man-made
> legends, while Quality is not.  I do not see the difference in
> their fundamental man-made basis.
> Cheers,
> Mark

Hi Mark,

Quality is Experience is Reality.  God, the definition, the associated 
connotations, the dogmas, all the stories, the history and etc., make 
it an unacceptable word/concept for me.  


Marsha





> 
> On Jan 14, 2010, at 11:41:12 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> From:   MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> Subject:    Re: [MD] Metaphysics
> Date:   January 14, 2010 11:41:12 PM PST
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> 
> On Jan 15, 2010, at 1:40 AM, markhsmit wrote:
> 
>> Mark:
>> I'm not sure what you mean by more moral and logical.
>> Those terms are defined through convention. I suppose
>> that within that convention what you state is true. But only 
>> within that convention. What about outside of that?
> 
> Marsha:
> There is silence. 
> 
> 
> 
>> Mark:
>> There is the educational God, which is an intellectual concept
>> that as such goes no further than ones thoughts. There is 
>> the found God, that is not acquired educationally. This is a
>> God that transcends the intellect. Such a God is then translated
>> to the intellect in order to describe it to others and for no other
>> reason. Those seeking to describe it find themselves at a loss
>> for words, since it is not an intellectual concept. The MoQ does
>> not state anything. There is no God of the MoQ who is making
>> the rules at this point. This is an open discussion to come to 
>> terms with a personal sense of MoQ. The intellectual part of
>> this philosophy is only a simple translation. If you doubt me,
>> go ahead and describe Quality in more than just a few catch
>> phrases with ambiguous meaning.
> 
> God or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made 
> constructs, myths and legends and these concepts are not 
> meaningful.
> 
> You know the Quality that is described is not the true Quality.
> 
> 
>> Mark:
>> Quality is reality is experience is a poor substitution of words
>> for the truth.
> 
> Marsha:
> They work for a conventional truth.
> 
> 
>> Mark:
>> Your Quality is your reality is your experience is closer to the truth. 
>> If I deny experience then I deny your reality,not mine. 
> 
> Marsha:
> I notice you haven't denied your experience.
> 
> 
>> Mark:
>> If Quality is reality, then why was it called Quality?
>> Does this lend a larger sense of reality than the term reality?
> 
> Marsha:
> It allows for conventional discussion.
> 
> 
>> Mark:
>> I think it is great that you believe that reality is experience. If
>> you describe to me what exactly you mean by these words, that
>> is derive a complex set of equalities, you can form a better picture
>> for me of your belief. 
> 
> Marsha:
> Experience IS reality. I, you, me and yours are conventional tags;
> there is no one to understand the words. The words flow like a 
> river. Picture a river. 
> 
> 
>> Mark:
>> Once you create a picture with feeling you get a little closer to
>> that you are seeking. Then you can drop the words entirely and
>> be Quality not objectify it asa concept. This is one way to break
>> the SOM.
> 
> Marsha:
> Dropping the words, for some unknown reason, has not been the
> problem. Keeping them dropped is difficult. Convince me that to
> drop words indefinitely is necessary. Death comes soon enough?
> 
> Cheers to you.
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>>  
>> On Jan 14, 2010, at 1:34:07 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>> Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics
>> Date: January 14, 2010 1:34:07 AM PST
>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>  
>> Hi Mark,
>>  
>> I would think that not to believe in God would be the more moral and 
>> logical decision. God is a social construction taught and assumed 
>> since childhood. The MoQ states that Quality is reality is experience.
>> Will you deny experience?
>>  
>>  
>> Marsha
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> On Jan 13, 2010, at 11:51 PM, markhsmit wrote:
>>  
>>> Hi Marsha,
>>> Yes, analogies or systems all the way down and up. Which is of course
>>> an analogy in itself. You speak of the liberty of belief in one thing or
>>> another. I do not believe that exists. Can one force him/herself to
>>> believe in something. Belief exists because it feels right, not because it
>>> is convenient. If a belief in God is not intellectual, then no belief is. It is 
>>> easy to confuse complexity for intellect, but it is all the same, to me at
>>> least.
>>>  
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mark
>>> On Jan 11, 2010, at 12:04:59 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics
>>> Date: January 11, 2010 12:04:59 AM PST
>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>>  
>>> On Jan 11, 2010, at 12:59 AM, markhsmit wrote:
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Hi Mark,
>>>  
>>> Very interesting post. It kind of has the ring of analogues all the way
>>> down. I do like that, but in my understanding, conventionally, or statically
>>> speaking, some patterns are conventionally more useful than others. 
>>> This would make the levels more important. Should I be a "believer" in
>>> God because it's a social imperative? If it's to avoid being burned at the 
>>> stake, it might be a smart idea to state that one believes in God, but for
>>> any intellectual reason, then I don't think so. 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Marsha
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>> Bodvar to virtually all of us:
>>>>  
>>>> Yes, you bet, metaphysics in the the true MOQ sense is reality, that's
>>>> the very point!
>>>  
>>>> Hello Bodvar and All:
>>>> When I read this, something dawned on me but couldn?t give it
>>>> expression until I lay, quietly on my electric blanket (it is fucking
>>>> freezing here!).
>>>> Then it came to me...the passage in ZMM (I think) where Phaedrus has a
>>>> conversation with a priest and they are talking about the liturgy, the
>>>> most sacred part: when the wine changes into blood, and the bread
>>>> changes into the body of Christ. Phaedrus asks along the lines of;
>>>> (sorry I do not have a copy of ZMM with me) yes, but this is
>>>> symbolically..yeS??. No! says the priest, this is real. At that
>>>> moment, the wine and bread change into the actual blood and body of
>>>> Jesus Christ!
>>>> Christians all over the world actually and factually believe that this
>>>> is indeed the case. And, further more, the Bible is of course seen,
>>>> not as a book full of stories ( if I may take the liberty, as a book
>>>> full of fingers pointing to the moon!!) but as the actual word of God.
>>>  
>>>> [Mark]: In response to Andre.
>>>> So Andre, you believe that it is not the word of God. Let me remind
>>>> you that that is a belief too, no more or less than to believe it is.
>>>> However, your posts sounds rather righteous, as if you believe
>>>> that your belief is correct. How did you get to this higher level?
>>>> How is it that your belief somehow is more right than, say, a
>>>> Christian's? In fact your belief is so blind, that you think that
>>>> it is somehow outside the system of beliefs, somehow the right way to
>>>> believe. Once you realize the relative nature of beliefs,
>>>> that is, that they are just opinions, you may see a little more.
>>>> So, yes, the wine is the blood of Christ to those that believe it,
>>>> and it is not to those who believe otherwise. There is
>>>> no right or wrong, unless you believe you are God. But of course if
>>>> your system of belief is that there isn't one, then you are something
>>>> else that is all knowing, or not. There is a God and there isn't a
>>>> God, both are correct. No need to take sides.
>>>>  
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Mark
>>>  
>>>  
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>  
>>> Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>  
>>  
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>  
>> Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>  
>>  
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 
> Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

  
_______________________________________________________________________
   
Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...